Overly sensitive

Seems the Diva is a sensitive soul after all. He may have the manners of rabid rottweiler when it comes to dealing with anyone with the temerity to criticise him, but ask some pointed questions and his sensitive side shows through.

Most of the questions we've asked - on your behalves, Watchers - have been met with a wall of secrecy. Too commercially sensitive for our eyes are:

• Correspondence between Council & Westgate Port of Taranaki - declined - commercial sensitivity.
• Correspondence relating to the River Queen - declined - commercial sensitivity.

Also declined was a request for the Audit Office report into management of the port and related issues, on the basis that this was "already in the public domain". But when we asked the Audit Office for a copy, they referred us to Council. And round and round we go...

Now before someone points out that the information we're seeking involves Council's dealing with businesses and that this sort of thing is likely to be commercially confidential we'd point out that it's unlikely every piece of correspondence on these matters would, in the words of Section 7 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act:

...be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

Note that doesn't say "the commercial position of the Council" but rather those bodies with whom it is dealing. Presumably, then, the claim of commercial confidentiality relies on a later part of Section 7 which says:

Enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities; or
Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

But then that leaves it open to Council to provide documents relating to the matter which aren't going to prejudice commercial negotiations and/or to invoke Section 16, which permits:

Where the information requested is comprised in a document and there is good reason for withholding some of the information contained in that document, the other information in that document may be made available by making a copy of that document available with such deletions or alterations as are necessary.

But faced with a request to see - on behalf of ratepayers - information relating to two important matters of public interest, the Council's response has been to put up the shutters.

Increasingly, information is being discussed behind closed doors. A quick look at the latest Council minutes on its website - for June 2005 - shows a plethora of secret topics (see pages at right) - two pages worth. Just how does this reflect the intent of diVision's Democracy Policy (cached here):

Vision Wanganui will, literally, give power to the people. A real and direct influence upon all issues of local significance and a more effective input into Council decision-making... Given that democracy is based upon empowering informed citizens...(our emphasis)

Wanganui is not alone, though. The Ombudsman has noticed that "complaints about a number of decisions on requests for official information have highlighted the need for regular training of staff on the application of the LGOIMA" and in a public statement said "holders of official information need to be reminded that by denying citizens access to information they are in fact denying those same citizens their right to participate in democratic processes".

---

Note: We've also asked for the OSH report into Sarjeant issues. We'll report on this at a later date as there is still information we need to receive, and further questions we want answers to first.

Comments on this post are now closed.